User talk:Athenaeum
Wikipedia is a complete joke as cranks are allowed free rein and treated with unlimited respect by the administrators while sensible editors are abused by the administrators. I regret attempting to help it and will not make the same mistake again. Athenaeum 19:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit]
Hi - I posted the section with the same name on my talk page. Could you take part in discussion ?
User: Shotwell suggested (on my talk page) "I would endorse a WP:EXPERTADVICE page that outlined the wikipedia policies and goals for researchers in a way that enticed them to edit here in an appropriate fashion. Perhaps a well-maintained list of expert editors with institutional affiliation would facilitate this sort of highly informal review process. I don't think anyone would object to a well-maintained list of highly-qualified researchers with institutional affiliation (but then again, everyone seems to object to something)."
We could start with that if you would agree ... - could you help to push his idea through Wikipedia bureaucracy ? Apovolot (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
In my view people nominated as "expert reviewers" should be willing not to hide under the veil of anonymity. They should be able to demonstrate some level of the verifiable accomplishment / recognition in the domain of professional science . BTW, I do not see any reason why the anonymity of editors on Wikipedia is considered to be a "good thing". Above is my general opinion, so please don't take my statement personally. There is obviously a choice given for everyone in Wikipedia either to act "in open" or to hide behind meaningless assumed pseudonym and I accept this situation. BTW, I do understand current Wikipedia concept that in order to produce good Wikipedia science article, one does not need to be a professional scientist ... - that is fine with me ... But I propose to have (at least optionally) ability to review/qualify such article by the professional scientist. Cheers, Apovolot (talk) 15:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Scottish Unionist Party MPs[edit]
Category:Scottish Unionist Party MPs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Your opinion[edit]
I'd appreciate your opinion on the following debate at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Turkish_Republic_of_Northern_Cyprus_Representative_Office_in_New_York Many thanks, Nipsonanomhmata (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)